who knows why this is? who can supply a reasoned informed argument
that explains why one much older aircraft of all metal construction
is not subject to the rigorous inspection schedules that the owners of older Cessna 100 and 200 series are? we who have invested large sums of moolah in our aircraft deserve honest and detailed answers to this.
Far Cu,
Surprisingly, there are reasons.
The first is that the Cessna program sprang from US legislation (not FAA) creating an Aging Aircraft Act ( to use the AU terminology) surveillance programs, from memory about 2001.There are now "SIDs" for virtually all CAR4/FAR 25 aircraft.
There has been some recent very interesting argie bargie between Cessna and FAA on the subject, look it up, Cessna had a big loose v. FAA, and all to the very great financial benefit of aircraft owners.
There have never been programs for Piper aircraft, because of interesting legal issues as to who is responsible for compliance with the above Act, given various bankruptcies and changes of ownership.
The Beechcraft version of reasons was more complex, but now it is owned ( for practical purposes) by Cessna (Textron), watch this space, I have seen some really 'horrible corrosion in a couple of Barons.
As to many aircraft like the Swift (and there are hundreds of long since defunct manufacturers) there is no Type Certificate Holder liable to produce a SID program, and in risk management terms, FAA is not too bothered, and Mr. Skidmore's aeroplane represents no measurable risk to "other airspace users or those on the ground under the flight-path of the aircraft".
What does not apply to a private aircraft in US applies here, because of our "one size fits all" approach, as opposed to the FAR Part 91/135/125/121 graded (risk managed) approach to continuing airworthiness. SIDs do apply to an aircraft operated under FAR Part 135 (roughly charter).
Tootle pip!!